Authors
Paul A. Roth
University of California, Santa Cruz
Abstract
History has been disparaged since the late 19th century for not conforming to norms of scientific explanation. Nonetheless, as a matter of fact a work of history upends the regnant philosophical conception of science in the second part of the 20th century. Yet despite its impact, Kuhn’s Structure has failed to motivate philosophers to ponder why works of history should be capable of exerting rational influence on an understanding of philosophy of science. But all this constitutes a great irony and a mystery. The mystery consists of the persistence of a complete lack of interest in efforts to theorize historical explanation. Fundamental questions regarding why an historical account could have any rational influence remain not merely unanswered, but unasked. The irony arises from the fact that analytic philosophy of history went into an eclipse where it remains until this day just around the time that the influence of Kuhn’s great work began to make itself felt. This paper highlights puzzles long ignored regarding the challenges a work of history managed to pose to the epistemic authority of science, and what this might imply generally for the place of philosophy of history vis-à-vis the problems of philosophy.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.08.001
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
Epistemology Naturalized.W. V. Quine - 1969 - In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
The Function of General Laws in History.Carl Gustav Hempel - 1942 - Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):35-48.
Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.Carl G. Hempel - 1950 - 11 Rev. Intern. De Philos 41 (11):41-63.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Philosophy of History and History of Philosophy of Science.Thomas Uebel - 2017 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 7 (1):1-30.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kuhn and the Historiography of Science.Alexander Bird - 2015 - In Alisa Bokulich & William J. Devlin (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On. Springer Verlag.
Getting to the Truth Through Conceptual Revolutions.Kevin T. Kelly & Clark Glymour - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:89 - 96.
Hacking Kuhn.Mauricio Suárez - 2003 - Revista de Filosofía (Madrid) 28 (2):261-284.
Thomas Kuhn's Cottage.Alex Levine - 2010 - Perspectives on Science 18 (3):369-377.
Theory-Assessment in the Historiography of Science.James W. McAllister - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (3):315-333.
Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?George A. Reisch - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (2):264-277.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-10-19

Total views
379 ( #27,277 of 2,520,356 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #72,003 of 2,520,356 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes